Tax Without Selling Shares? How California’s Billionaire Tax Could Affect U.S. Equities and Big Tech

The central issue is not the 5% tax rate itself.

The key shift is the potential departure from the principle that tax is generally deferred until shares are sold. The proposal could tax unrealized gains and assets that remain under ownership.

If implemented, California’s billionaire tax could directly affect founders and major shareholders of Silicon Valley companies, including Google, Nvidia, Meta, Oracle, Palantir, and Anthropic.

However, online commentary often combines confirmed facts, projections, and unsupported estimates.

Claims that the departure of six billionaires eliminated $27 billion in tax revenue, that Mark Zuckerberg received special shares, or that Jensen Huang would immediately owe $8 billion require verification against official documents and final legislative language.

This report examines the proposed tax structure, high-net-worth migration, potential effects on Big Tech valuations, changes in the AI startup ecosystem, and France’s proposed Zucman tax.

1. What Is California’s Billionaire Tax?

The proposal discussed here would impose a one-time tax of approximately 5% on California residents with net assets exceeding $1 billion.

At an assumed exchange rate of KRW 1,400 per U.S. dollar, the threshold would be approximately KRW 1.4 trillion.

Because California has a high concentration of technology founders, venture capitalists, and AI entrepreneurs, approximately 200 individuals could be subject to the tax.

• Taxpayers: California residents with net assets of at least $1 billion
• Tax rate: Approximately 5%, assessed once
• Tax base: Net assets, including publicly traded shares, private-company holdings, and other assets
• Payment structure: Potential installment payments over several years
• Primary objective: Funding healthcare and social programs while increasing the effective tax rate on ultra-high-net-worth individuals

The final legislation and California’s official voter guide must be reviewed to confirm the valuation date, deductions, treatment of liabilities, and valuation rules for private-company shares.

If tax liability is based on residency as of January 1, 2026, individuals who relocate before that date could receive materially different treatment from those who move afterward.

2. Why Could Tax Apply Without a Share Sale?

Capital gains taxes are generally imposed when an asset is sold and the gain is realized.

For example, if shares purchased for KRW 1 billion increase in value to KRW 3 billion, the KRW 2 billion increase remains unrealized until the shares are sold.

Under conventional capital gains tax systems, this unrealized gain is generally not taxed immediately.

Ultra-high-net-worth individuals can retain growth stocks for extended periods and obtain liquidity through share-backed borrowing rather than selling their holdings.

This approach defers capital gains taxes while preserving voting rights and corporate control.

The strategy commonly described in the United States as “buy, borrow, die” reflects this tax-deferral structure.

Supporters of a billionaire tax argue that income-based taxation does not adequately capture the economic wealth of asset owners who rarely sell appreciated shares.

Opponents argue that taxing unrealized value without corresponding cash proceeds could force share sales and the disposal of strategic corporate holdings.

3. Would the Tax Trigger Large-Scale Share Sales?

For investors, the primary question is whether the tax could place downward pressure on Big Tech shares.

An immediate market-wide selloff appears unlikely, but company-specific selling pressure could create a short-term overhang.

Founders whose wealth is concentrated in company shares would generally have four funding options:

1. Sell part of their shareholdings in the market.
2. Borrow against their shares.
3. Use dividends or existing cash reserves.
4. Sell real estate or other non-core assets.

If liabilities can be paid over several years, the risk of concentrated selling at a single point in time would decline.

However, liquidity pressure could increase if taxes are based on an earlier valuation and share prices subsequently fall sharply.

Repeated insider-sale disclosures could also weaken investor sentiment beyond the direct impact of the actual sales.

Investors should therefore assess founder ownership, voting-control structures, scheduled insider-sale plans, and share-backed borrowing in addition to the estimated tax liability.

4. Why Google, Meta, Nvidia, and Palantir Are Frequently Cited

California is home to a high concentration of founders associated with major technology and AI companies.

A founder’s personal relocation must be distinguished from the relocation of the company itself.

A move to Florida or Texas does not automatically transfer a company’s headquarters, workforce, or research operations.

However, sustained migration by founders, venture capitalists, and family offices could gradually redirect investment and employment to other regions.

5. Why Wealthy Residents Move to Florida and Texas

Florida and Texas do not impose state-level individual income taxes, making them comparatively attractive relative to California.

California already has one of the highest individual income-tax burdens in the United States.

An additional wealth tax could strengthen incentives for high-net-worth residents to relocate and reduce long-term tax exposure.

Purchasing a residence in another state does not, by itself, establish tax residency.

Authorities may consider the number of days spent in each state, family residence, business activity, driver’s license, voter registration, and the location of homes and offices.

California tax authorities could closely scrutinize residency changes involving high-net-worth taxpayers.

Florida and Texas also impose other taxes, including property and sales taxes.

It is therefore inaccurate to describe either state as entirely tax-free.

6. The Problem With Claims That Six Departures Eliminated $27 Billion in Revenue

The meaning of the figure must be carefully examined.

If reports state that $27 billion left the tax base following several billionaire relocations, investors must distinguish among net worth, taxable assets, and actual tax revenue.

If $27 billion in taxable assets moved out of the state and the applicable rate were 5%, the theoretical revenue impact would be $1.35 billion.

Describing the entire $27 billion as lost tax revenue would be inconsistent with the stated tax rate.

It is also uncertain whether the full amount would have been collected had the individuals remained in California.

Litigation, valuation disputes, deductions, installment payments, and potential nonpayment could all affect actual revenue.

Assets, the taxable base, and projected tax receipts are separate concepts and should not be presented interchangeably.

7. Frequently Overlooked Issue 1: Valuing Private AI Companies

Most coverage focuses on possible share sales by major holders of listed companies such as Nvidia and Meta.

The more complex implementation issue may involve private AI companies such as Anthropic.

Private-company shares do not have continuously observable market prices, and valuations from recent funding rounds may differ from realizable transaction values.

A founder may hold private shares valued at several billion dollars on paper while having no liquid market in which to sell them.

Tax assessed on that valuation could therefore create substantial liabilities without corresponding cash flow.

The proposal could affect not only taxation but also AI startup ownership structures, investment agreements, and stock-option design.

Founder residency, corporate domicile, and the tax treatment of private shares could become increasingly relevant variables in AI investment analysis.

8. Frequently Overlooked Issue 2: Corporate Control May Matter More Than Share Price

Share sales made to fund tax payments can reduce both economic ownership and corporate voting power.

Companies with dual-class structures, including Meta and Alphabet, may provide founders with greater control protection than conventional one-share, one-vote structures.

At companies where voting rights are directly linked to economic ownership, recurring founder sales could produce material governance changes.

If a company effectively compensates a founder for personal tax costs through additional shares or remuneration, existing shareholders could face dilution.

Such arrangements require scrutiny of board approval, conflicts of interest, and public disclosures.

Reports concerning special share awards or long-term retention agreements should not be treated as confirmed unless supported by official filings.

9. Frequently Overlooked Issue 3: Tax Competition Could Reshape the U.S. Industrial Map

The long-term movement of capital and talent may be more consequential than the relocation of a small number of billionaires.

When family offices relocate, legal, accounting, asset-management, and venture-capital services may follow.

The movement of venture investors could also influence where new startups are formed.

California retains structural advantages through Stanford University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the broader Silicon Valley research and talent ecosystem.

However, continued growth in Miami and Austin as centers for finance, digital assets, defense technology, and AI could accelerate the geographic diversification of U.S. innovation.

Regional capital flows should therefore be monitored alongside interest rates and economic growth when evaluating the global outlook.

10. France’s Zucman Tax and the Global Wealth-Tax Debate

The California debate reflects broader wealth-tax proposals associated with economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez.

They have argued that taxation should include asset ownership, rather than income alone, to raise the effective tax rates paid by ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

In France, the proposed Zucman tax has become a political issue. It would apply a minimum effective tax rate to individuals holding more than EUR 100 million in assets.

However, the French proposal and California’s proposed one-time 5% tax differ in both legal structure and implementation.

Federal billionaire-tax and ultra-high-net-worth tax proposals have also been introduced in the United States, but constitutional concerns and political opposition have created substantial barriers.

The broader trend is the repeated consideration of unrealized gains and net wealth as potential tax bases in both the United States and Europe.

11. Arguments Supporting the Billionaire Tax

• Ultra-high-net-worth individuals can defer capital gains taxes for extended periods by retaining appreciated shares.
• Asset appreciation can substantially increase economic wealth while producing effective tax rates below those paid by wage earners.
• The tax would apply to a limited population and would not directly burden middle-income households or ordinary investors.
• Revenue could fund healthcare, education, housing, and social programs.
• Installment payments could reduce the need for forced asset sales.

12. Arguments Opposing the Billionaire Tax

• Taxing unrealized asset values can create liquidity constraints.
• Relocation by wealthy residents could reduce income-tax, consumption-tax, and other state revenue.
• Private shares, artwork, intellectual property, and complex ownership structures are difficult to value accurately.
• Asset values may decline substantially between the assessment date and the payment date.
• Property rights, tax equity, and state constitutional issues could result in prolonged litigation.
• Entrepreneurs and new startups could increasingly avoid California.

13. Why Passage Would Not Necessarily Mean Immediate Implementation

Approval in a statewide vote would not resolve all implementation issues.

The first challenge is asset valuation.

Listed shares have observable market prices, while private shares, complex trusts, and foreign assets could generate valuation disputes.

The second challenge is residency.

Tax audits could focus on whether individuals relocating near the assessment date remained California residents for tax purposes.

The third challenge is constitutional litigation.

Courts could examine retroactivity, property rights, interstate commerce, and equal-treatment issues.

Accordingly, scenarios involving immediate and simultaneous share sales by major shareholders may be overstated.

14. The 2026 U.S. Midterm Elections and Tax Policy

The November 3, 2026 U.S. midterm elections will cover federal congressional races as well as state ballot initiatives and tax-policy measures.

If Democrats expand their influence in Congress, proposals for higher taxes on high-income households and corporations could return to the policy agenda.

However, state wealth taxes and federal tax policy proceed through separate legal and legislative processes.

Even if congressional control changes, Senate procedures, presidential veto authority, and judicial review would continue to affect the probability of enactment.

Prediction-market probabilities reflect real-time market expectations but are not equivalent to opinion polls or election results.

A probability of 30% or 50% at a particular point should not be interpreted as a definitive forecast.

15. Key Considerations for International Investors

First, monitor actual insider-sale filings.

Insider transaction reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are more relevant than media commentary or relocation speculation.

Second, assess founder ownership and voting structures.

The governance impact of a sale differs substantially between companies with dual-class shares and those using conventional voting structures.

Third, determine whether sales were prearranged.

Sales conducted under previously established trading plans may not represent emergency transactions related to tax liabilities.

Fourth, monitor changes in AI-company domicile.

Investors should assess whether AI startups increasingly choose Texas, Florida, Nevada, or Delaware over California.

Fifth, focus on long-term policy expansion rather than short-term price reactions.

Even if the California proposal is rejected, similar wealth-tax and high-income tax measures could emerge in other states or at the federal level.

16. Core Investment Perspective

The issue extends beyond whether wealthy individuals should pay more tax.

The central policy shift is the potential movement of taxation from the point of asset disposal to the period in which an asset is held and appreciates.

Although the current proposal targets billionaires, the scope of an established tax framework could change over time.

Conversely, it would be speculative to assume that a one-time tax affecting a very limited population would automatically be extended to ordinary investors.

The most likely initial effects would involve high-net-worth migration, family-office relocation, increased major-shareholder sales, and changes in the geographic structure of the AI industry rather than a broad market collapse.

Investors should prioritize final legislative language, valuation dates, litigation, residency determinations, and insider transaction disclosures over political rhetoric.

< Summary >

• California’s billionaire-tax proposal would impose a one-time tax of approximately 5% on the net assets of individuals worth at least $1 billion.
• The most significant change is the potential taxation of unrealized gains and assets without requiring a sale.
• Founders and major shareholders associated with Google, Meta, Nvidia, Oracle, Palantir, and private AI companies could fall within its scope.
• Tax-related share sales are possible, but installment payments, borrowing, and litigation reduce the probability of an immediate large-scale selloff.
• Private AI-company valuations and limited liquidity present greater implementation challenges than publicly traded shares.
• Migration to Florida and Texas reflects differences in state income taxes and long-term tax exposure.
• Asset values and expected tax revenue are distinct measures, making claims of a “$27 billion revenue loss” potentially misleading.
• Investors should monitor insider-sale filings, voting structures, residency determinations, final legislation, and court proceedings.

[Related Articles…]

• How Wealth Taxes Could Reshape Global Capital Flows and Equity Markets
• AI Investment Trends and the Geographic Shift in Technology Startups

How Markets Could Shift After the 2026 U.S. Midterm Elections: Investment Strategies for AI Semiconductors, Data Centers, Biotechnology, Defense, and Nuclear Energy

The central issue in the November 3, 2026 U.S. midterm elections is not simply which party wins.

The distribution of congressional power and its implications for budgets, tariffs, AI regulation, and energy policy will be more consequential for markets.

This report assesses how U.S. equity market leadership could change under Republican control, Democratic control, and divided-government scenarios.

It also examines the congressional transition timeline, impeachment procedures, potential AI capital expenditure deceleration, power-grid constraints, and government shutdown risks.

The Key Variables for Markets in the 2026 U.S. Midterm Elections

All House seats and approximately one-third of Senate seats will be contested in the U.S. midterm elections.

The House tends to respond more directly to nationwide changes in voter sentiment, while Senate outcomes depend heavily on the states holding elections and the competitiveness of individual candidates.

A decline in presidential approval ratings alone is therefore insufficient to conclude that Democrats will win both chambers.

Investors should assess national polling, district-level races, candidate quality, early and mail-in voting, and household perceptions of economic conditions.

One market view is that investors are already pricing in a Democratic takeover of both the Senate and House.

Under this interpretation, relative strength in biotechnology and renewable energy, alongside weakness in defense and AI semiconductors, reflects changing political expectations.

However, sector performance also incorporates interest rates, earnings, valuations, supply chains, and company-specific investment plans.

Attributing sector movements exclusively to election expectations would be an oversimplification.

Four Primary Election Scenarios

Markets have generally viewed divided government as a relatively favorable outcome.

Unified control can improve policy execution but may also allow unexpected fiscal measures or regulations to pass quickly.

Divided government slows policy changes and can improve the predictability of corporate costs.

However, divided government is not consistently positive for equities.

Disputes over appropriations, the debt ceiling, taxes, and subsidies can lead to government shutdowns or delayed fiscal implementation.

Divided government may reduce long-term policy-shift risk while increasing short-term political conflict.

Why Equities Often Strengthen After Midterm Elections

Historically, U.S. equity volatility has often increased before midterm elections, followed by relatively strong performance after the vote.

Some historical analyses place the average S&P 500 return in the year following a midterm election at approximately 16.6%.

The figure varies by measurement period and research provider, making the directional pattern more relevant than the exact average.

Before an election, investors may increase allocations to cash and U.S. Treasury securities because the outcome remains uncertain.

After congressional control becomes clear, sidelined capital may rotate into sectors expected to benefit from the resulting policy framework.

Reduced political uncertainty can support a recovery in risk appetite.

Historical patterns do not guarantee a similar outcome in 2026.

Federal Reserve policy, Treasury yields, corporate earnings, recession risk, and equity valuations may have a greater market impact than the election cycle.

Divided Government: Potential Equity Support but Higher Shutdown Risk

A Republican Senate and Democratic House would create a conventional divided-government structure.

Democratic control of the House would provide substantial influence over appropriations and spending legislation.

Proposals involving higher defense spending, major tax cuts, and targeted industrial support could face stronger congressional constraints.

Expectations of lower fiscal spending could reduce concerns about Treasury issuance and the federal deficit.

More stable long-term Treasury yields could improve the valuation environment for growth equities.

Conversely, prolonged budget negotiations could increase shutdown risk and short-term financial-market volatility.

Tariff policy could remain active even under divided government.

The president may use trade authority delegated by Congress and executive measures to pursue product-specific tariffs.

Automobiles, steel, batteries, and semiconductors could remain central targets of trade policy under legislative gridlock.

Implementation would still be constrained by statutory authority, judicial review, administrative procedures, and congressional responses.

Democratic Sweep: AI Capital Expenditure and Data Center Regulation

If Democrats gain control of both chambers, the Trump administration’s legislative capacity could weaken substantially.

Congressional investigations and oversight could intensify, while disputes over budgets, energy, healthcare, and environmental policy could increase.

However, presidential veto authority would prevent Congress from implementing Democratic priorities without sufficient bipartisan support.

The pace of data center investment would become a central issue for the AI industry.

Major U.S. technology companies are investing heavily in GPUs, servers, cooling systems, and power infrastructure to compete in generative AI.

These investments have supported revenue growth for AI semiconductor companies and contributed to U.S. capital spending.

Electricity costs and free cash flow are important constraints.

If AI capital expenditure grows faster than operating cash flow, companies may need to issue debt, sell assets, or moderate investment growth.

Stricter requirements related to electricity-cost allocation, environmental reviews, grid connections, and community protections could increase construction costs and timelines.

The principal risk is slower growth in AI investment rather than an outright decline.

Even if total capital expenditure continues to increase, a material deceleration could reduce earnings expectations for GPU, memory, and server suppliers.

For AI semiconductor investors, the year-over-year growth rate of investment may be as important as the absolute spending level.

Clarifying Data Center Regulation

New York State has not imposed a comprehensive statewide ban on conventional data center construction.

The state has implemented permit restrictions affecting certain cryptocurrency mining facilities that use fossil-fuel generation, while some local jurisdictions have considered data center moratoriums.

Conventional data center restrictions should be evaluated separately through local land-use rules, grid capacity, water availability, noise standards, and environmental permitting.

Neither major party is likely to abandon strategic competition in AI.

Democrats and Republicans broadly agree on maintaining U.S. leadership relative to China.

The principal differences concern the speed of infrastructure expansion and how electricity and environmental costs should be allocated between companies and local communities.

Republican Sweep: Defense, Nuclear Power, LNG, and AI Infrastructure

If Republicans retain both chambers, markets may conclude that the Trump administration can maintain its policy agenda.

Higher defense spending, nuclear regulatory reform, LNG exports, fossil-fuel development, and faster data center permitting could become major investment themes.

If markets have priced in excessive Democratic strength, an unexpected Republican sweep could produce a sharp short-term revaluation of defense equities.

Higher defense budgets and demands for increased allied defense spending could support missile systems, aerospace, unmanned systems, and cybersecurity companies.

For nuclear energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing reform and support for small modular reactors would be key policy variables.

Extending the operating lives of existing reactors and building new capacity could help supply the continuous low-carbon power required by data centers.

Traditional nuclear operators, SMR developers, uranium suppliers, maintenance providers, and equipment manufacturers could receive greater investor attention.

Sectors to Monitor Under Democratic Control: Renewable Energy, Biotechnology, and Healthcare

Democrats could seek to preserve or restore clean-energy tax credits introduced under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Key mechanisms include the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit.

More favorable tax credits could improve project economics for solar, wind, energy storage, and grid infrastructure.

Healthcare insurance subsidies and Medicaid funding would also be important.

Higher healthcare and social spending could stabilize the revenue base of hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology firms.

Relative strength in large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, combined with semiconductor weakness, could reflect both policy expectations and demand for defensive assets.

Democratic control would not benefit all biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

Expanded drug-price negotiations and pricing restrictions could pressure large pharmaceutical companies’ margins.

Investors should distinguish between the benefits of broader insurance coverage and the negative effects of lower drug prices.

Bipartisan Opportunities: Power Equipment, Transmission Networks, and Energy Storage

Power infrastructure is one of the most significant bipartisan investment themes.

Republicans generally favor nuclear power and LNG, while Democrats favor solar and wind. All generation sources, however, require transmission infrastructure to supply data centers and industrial facilities.

Aging U.S. power grids, transformer shortages, and delayed transmission permitting require action regardless of party control.

Demand for high-voltage transformers, circuit breakers, cables, substations, and power-management software is likely to increase structurally.

The most significant practical constraint on AI expansion may be grid connectivity and transformer availability rather than GPU supply.

Energy storage is also relevant under both parties.

Higher renewable-energy penetration requires storage to offset intermittent generation.

In power systems centered on nuclear generation and LNG, storage can help manage data center peak demand and backup power requirements.

Under divided government, support for specific generation sources may face constraints, while policies supporting grid reliability and energy storage may remain viable.

Defense Equities Could Be Highly Sensitive to Congressional Control

Republicans have traditionally supported higher defense spending, while Democrats have generally placed greater emphasis on social programs and clean-energy investment.

A Republican sweep could therefore support defense equities, while a Democratic sweep could moderate the growth rate of defense spending.

However, the war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, China-Taiwan tensions, and higher NATO defense spending are geopolitical factors that extend beyond party politics.

Democratic control of Congress would not necessarily lead to an absolute reduction in defense spending.

The allocation of funding across missile defense, drones, space systems, cybersecurity, and naval programs may be more important than the total defense budget.

Two Near-Term Risks After the Midterm Elections

The first risk is an escalation in trade conflict.

If legislative initiatives face congressional resistance, the administration may rely more heavily on trade policy and executive action.

Product-specific tariffs could protect domestic manufacturers but also raise import prices, increase corporate costs, and contribute to inflation.

The second risk is a government shutdown.

Budget and debt-ceiling negotiations could become more difficult under divided government or Democratic control of Congress.

A shutdown would delay public spending and economic data releases while weakening consumer and business confidence.

A prolonged shutdown could also pressure the U.S. sovereign credit profile and Treasury market conditions.

Critical Issues That May Be Underappreciated

First, congressional control does not change immediately after the election.

Members elected on November 3, 2026 will generally assume office when the new Congress convenes on January 3, 2027.

The incumbent Congress remains active during the lame-duck period between the election and the opening of the new Congress.

The existing Congress may pass appropriations and other major legislation during this period, limiting the case for assuming an immediate policy shift.

Second, Democratic control of the House would neither guarantee nor preclude presidential impeachment.

The House can approve articles of impeachment by a simple majority.

Removal from office requires a two-thirds vote among senators present.

Even if Republicans retain the Senate, the House could still impeach the president, although conviction and removal would likely remain difficult.

Third, slower AI investment growth is not equivalent to an AI industry collapse.

Total data center capital expenditure may continue to rise even if its growth rate declines.

AI semiconductor equities could correct because growth falls below market expectations, even without an absolute decline in earnings.

Investors should assess whether AI demand can exceed embedded expectations, rather than focusing only on whether demand remains positive.

Fourth, the power grid is a more immediate data center constraint than political policy.

Grid connections can require several years, while lead times for large transformers and turbines have lengthened.

Even with congressional support for AI investment, data center operations may be delayed if transmission and generation infrastructure remain insufficient.

Fifth, Treasury yields may not move in a single direction after the election.

Expectations of lower fiscal spending could reduce long-term yields, while tariff-driven inflation concerns could push them higher.

A simultaneous decline in equities and Treasury yields could indicate rising recession concerns and broader risk aversion.

Investment Checklist by Scenario

• Democratic sweep: Monitor renewable energy, biotechnology, and healthcare, while assessing drug-pricing regulation and data center electricity-cost requirements.
• Republican sweep: Defense, nuclear power, LNG, and AI infrastructure may benefit, but tariff-driven inflation and higher Treasury yields remain risks.
• Divided government: Power equipment, transmission networks, energy storage, and companies with stable cash flow may be relatively well positioned.
• Unexpected result: If markets have heavily priced in one outcome, a contrary result could increase volatility in defense, semiconductor, and renewable-energy equities.
• Common considerations: Order backlogs, debt, free cash flow, and valuation should take priority over policy expectations.

< Summary >

The first market effect after the 2026 U.S. midterm elections is likely to be a reduction in political uncertainty.

Divided government may support equities by limiting major policy changes, but it could also increase budget disputes and shutdown risk.

Democratic control could favor renewable energy and healthcare, while Republican control could favor defense, nuclear power, LNG, and AI infrastructure.

For AI capital expenditure, the key risk is slower growth rather than a complete halt. Power equipment, transmission networks, and energy storage should retain structural demand regardless of the election outcome.

Election results will begin to affect policy after the new Congress convenes in January 2027, making the lame-duck session and budget negotiations important interim variables.

Historical post-midterm performance is only a reference point. Interest rates, earnings, valuations, and cash flow should remain the primary investment considerations.

[Related Articles…]

• U.S. Election Scenarios and the Global Market Outlook
• AI Data Center Investment, Semiconductors, and Power Infrastructure